Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: vhsema  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add vhsema to your Buddy List
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM

Review Date: Sep 18, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $669.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, well-built, good colors, fast focus
Nothing that isn't listed in specs, like no FTM

Excellent lens so far. I'm really enjoying it. Nice and solid. Very sharp wide open at f/2.8, but extremely sharp at f/4.

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S DX

Review Date: Apr 1, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,199.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, excellent build quality, pleasing bokeh and colors
Heavy, slight distortion on wide end

I really wanted to purchase the Tamrom 17-50 f/2.8 instead, but when I went to a local store and tried it and the Nikon out at maximum aperture, it was no contest. Using my wife as a test subject, her eyes just popped with the Nikon.

That's not to say that the Tamron was bad, because it wasn't. Instead, it was just that the Nikon was that good. If I didn't need the lens for professional work, then I would have bought the Tamrom.

Evaluate your needs, and make your purchase based on that.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Jun 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $670.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Solid build, images have a creaminess that is hard to define, pretty sharp. Overall, a very nice lense.
A little on the short side, but I knew that going in. Distortion on the wide end, but it is a wide angle.

I really like this lense. The build quality is superb and the images have that "pop" that I hadn't gotten with some other lenses. The lense is short, even on a 1.6x body, but I knew that when I bought it. Also, there is distortion on the wide end, but it is a wide angle.

Overall, I am pleased. I have thought about upgrading to the 17-55 f2.8 ef-s, but even if I do, I think I will try to keep this lense because it is very good.